Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS New gTLD Applicant Support WG Charter

[Cintra Sooknanan <cintra.sooknanan@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Alan,

I agree that the new WG Charter is very limited in scope and may not provide
an effective or sustainable mechanism for access to application support. I
do think we should maintain our previous Charter.

However it is important that ALAC and GNSO work in this area is
co-ordinated. Perhaps, we can seek clarification from them as to why they
have lowered the bar on their scope and contribution so significantly (for
better understanding and in order to help us determine if we should do the
same)?

Also, if we ultimately cannot agree to a single or synchronised Charter, we
may wish to request that a clause be added be added to each of our
individual Charters which will acknowledge and support the work done by the
other.

Regards
Cintra


On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 2:05 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>
> Sending this message to both lists was probably a mistake, because I
> suspect that those without posting rights on the other list will be held for
> moderation or bounced.
>
> In any case two small reply comments.
>
> Regarding being kind, I was trying really hard to present what happened and
> not editorialize. I know a bit sneaked in.
>
> Regarding the chain of command, I was amused by that but not really
> worried, as the chartering body is the NORMAL place to submit a report, and
> if there is some reason that this needs to be bypassed for expediency or
> whatever, I have faith that at least the ALAC would bless that. If a
> document is submitted by the WG to (say) the Board, it is still just a WG
> opinion and not that of the chartering body (which is what caused my
> amusement.
>
> Regarding what the ALAC does, it is a bit problematic. I also would like to
> see the group continue on the path addressing a variety of support
> methodologies. But I also see a real problem raising its head if one of the
> first multiple-SO/AC chartered groups cannot really be a joint operation. It
> does not bode well for future efforts.
>
> Alan
>
>
> At 13/01/2011 11:56 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>  Alan,
>>
>> Thank you for forwarding that.
>>
>> I think you are too kind in your reference to the charter approved by the
>> GNSO.
>>
>>
>> As far I ca tell it only approves aid, when that aid is in partnership
>> with an incumbent.  While this was one type of aid the JAS group was
>> recommending, to provide only this form of aid strike me as a form of
>> neocolonialism where of those helped would only be helped by an incumbent
>> partner.  No fee reductions.  No financial aid.  Just partnership with an
>> incumbent.  Is this really something this group can just accept?
>>
>> The GNSO motion takes another unconscionable step in trying to prevent the
>> JAS WG from sharing it results and recommendations with anyone other than
>> the chartering organization.  That is, it would establish a military style
>> chain of command for all JAS WG recommendations that would bar the group
>> from communicating with the Board , the GAC or the community at large.   I
>> do not believe this sort of top down restriction of WG flexibility should be
>> accepted.
>>
>> It is my fervent hope, that the ALAC does not change its JAS charter based
>> on the GNSO motion.
>>
>> As for why we haven't met yet, I can only imagine that the new co-chairs
>> are catching their breath after the holidays.  And I know that Rafik has
>> been busy banging his head against the wall of the Contracted Parties House
>> representatives in the GNSO trying to gain support or the charter we
>> proposed.  As a member of the GNSO council he is stuck between a rock and a
>> hard place and I do not envy his position.
>>
>> I personally think we should just charge ahead on the charter as specified
>> by the ALAC.
>>
>> a.
>>
>>
>> On 13 Jan 2011, at 22:23, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>>
>> > At its meeting today, the GNSO approved a new charter for the JAS group.
>> This charter differs significantly from the one that was originally proposed
>> to the GNSO and later approved by the ALAC at its November 2010 meeting.
>> >
>> > I have formatted both charters for a left-right comparison and it is
>> attached.
>> >
>> > The ALAC must now decide which path to follow:
>> >
>> > 1. Adjust its charter to match the new GNSO one;  or
>> >
>> > 2. Keep the existing charter or modify it somewhat. This would mean that
>> the WG is working to two different charters simultaneously.
>> >
>> > I am not a fan of the new charter. I find it far too controlling and
>> eliminates actions which the WG felt were important when the revised charter
>> was first drafted.
>> >
>> > The vote for this charter was preceded by much discussion and a vote on
>> the original charter as well as an amendment which would have significantly
>> augmented the final version, both of which failed. The charter does include
>> a specific item on IDN, an option that the WG had considered but later
>> decided not to include.
>> >
>> > The final vote was very close, and nearly failed. A failure would have
>> left the WG unchartered (un-re-chartered?) by the GNSO, a situation that
>> would also have been difficult to handle. But for whatever reasons, we now
>> have the two charters as shown in the attachment.
>> >
>> > Obviously (to me in any case), the ALAC should seek the thoughts of the
>> WG members regarding how it should proceed.
>> >
>> > I also note that after the Cartagena meeting (where the GNSO had not
>> approved the draft charter), there was a strong feeling within the WG that:
>> >
>> > - it had an expanded charter from the ALAC;
>> > - the original charter from the GNSO was thought be some to allow
>> further work, even if not specified in detail;
>> > - work should proceed without delay.
>> >
>> > For reasons that I do not fully understand, that has not happened, and I
>> do not believe that the group has met at all this year.
>> >
>> > Alan<Charters.pdf>
>>
>
>